The coalition is dead...long live the coalition!

"Does Iggy have a "Boston Brahmin" accent?"

I noticed on the radio yesterday that his mid-Atlantic cadences had softened.  At least while he was in the thick of reacting to the budget, and making his pitch as the government's conscience.

We will have to see what the future of collaboration brings to his voice.

In Paul Wells' book, he wrote about interviewing Ignatieff and that he had obviously been heavily coached on how to sound more "common" and dropped so many Gs that you would have thought he was auditioning for a part on HeeHaw.

I'm pretty sure I heard Iggy say "I'm pocket lint for the Harpers and uncle Sam" at some point. It was superimposed over his monotone accent and barely audible.

Observations.

While the NDP was hashing out the Coalition deal with the LPC. The Green Party demonstrated their support for it with a pitch for a Senate Seat for their leader Elizabeth May.  Lots of talk about the 62% majority and other such myths but all in all the GP like to behave as if part of a coalition.

1) Is there a Green Party statement on the budget? For or Against?

2) Does the Green Party Support the LPC and the budget thus become part of a greater CPC, LPC and GPC coalition?

Just having a little fun, but on the same note, does this party know where they stand today, and are they still making deals with the LPC? 

I have just added this link.... Painful as it is coming from Owen Sound.

15 minutes of fame 

I didn't know if the Greens still existed. They have been totally quiet. What goves?

Looks like that one is long, so let's continue the discussion from this thread here.

The Greens will cease to exist if the public subsidies disappear. Who wants to wager that won't occur?

Interesting discussion in the Globe 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.WCoalitiondi...

Layton's approach begins with a commitment to significantly improve our game during elections. That's about both our air and ground games. Steadily, incrementally, we've made progress.

And then, between elections, he has looked for ways to get things done.

Layton has been leader of our party for almost exactly six years, and in that short time our team has experimented with each of these options, singly or in combination.

Elements of his MO include careful homework (sometimes begun months or years in advance); a great deal of discussion within his team; and then disciplined execution when opportunity presents itself.

So where does it leave us that this latest effort?

Back to default; a few weeks of rest; and then time to think of something new.

Mr. Layton's predecessors and our party saints were determined people. So is the current team.

So then there's the new guy.

Apropos of the questions about the Budgets impact on Cons fundraising:

Some of the budget's biggest critics: Tories

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.wtories30/BNStory/politics/home

Most of the article is about the critics, including Flannagan.

But the article also closes with this.

“The Conservative party is conservative in name only. It makes me yearn for the days when we had a relatively fiscally conservative leader like Jean Chrétien,” Mr. Nicholls said, referring to the former Liberal prime minister's victory in slaying the deficit in the mid-1990s and paying down federal debt.

Others, however, argued that most members of the party's rank-and-file will realize that while there is doubt about the package, the government wasn't in a position to run counter to the stimulative moves of other countries.

“I don't think there will be very profound grumbling from the conservative wing,” said Roger Gibbins of the Canada West Foundation. “For every person who says that Harper is abandoning his principles, there will be five who will say, ‘Well, principles will only take you so far and you have to be able to have enough flexibility to adapt to the times.'” What's more, he added, most party members have no other place to go.

Worth noting that Flannagan the realist while being critical of the Budget, would agree with this assessment. I can't rmember where I saw a lengthier account of his comments, but do remember that he thought it unecessary that Harper had caved so far.

No idea how he thinks less would have worked. Doesn't strike me that way. Maybe he thinks Iggy was only bluffing and would have accepted even fewer crumbs. If so, he may be right.

At any rate, I see no reason to expect a revolt from the base in the near future... or even just stay-home or wallets-shut.

My favourite quote from the Globe piece:

 "It makes me yearn for the days when we had a relatively fiscally conservative leader like Jean Chrétien,” Mr. Nicholls said, referring to the former Liberal prime minister's victory in slaying the deficit in the mid-1990s and paying down federal debt."

Another sign of how dead the coalition is and how morally bankrupt the liberals are:

Liberals vote against Bloc amendment supported by the NDP

Kudos to the BQ.

ETA: I'd love for some political theatre to be played along the lines of some stalling tactic during the budget vote. I don't know how things work, but perhaps every member of the NDP (and maybe the Bloc) could rise individually on a point of privilege at the appointed time of the budget vote and asks for embarassing sections to be read out repeatedly in full. A voice vote where the Liberals have to individually, verbally pronounce their support for the budget would also make great cuts for radio and youtube ads.

Funny quote from Mulcair on the Wednesday edition of CBC's "Politics"

"I'm going to predict for you right now, that Michael Ignatieff is going to turn 65 and get his pension before we see the next election- oh no, that's not true because he can't get his pension, he's never worked in Canada."

Haha!  That's fabulous.  Mulcair really is a gem, isn't he?

From: After the coalition Liberal Robert Silver and New Democrat Brian Topp trade thoughts on the broken marriage between their parties

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090129.WCoalitiondiscussion30/BNStory/politics/?pageRequested=all

Coming soon: The conversation continues with a discussion of why the coalition broke down, and what happens now.

Here's the preamble from Robert Silver -the liberal perspective (my emphasis)

Topp then gives some good examples of other things that once upon a time the majority said could never happen (i.e.labour laws, progressive taxation system) to illustrate that that no one supports change at the beginning - they think it's impossible, that the economy will fall apart etc. (people said the same about abolishing slavery).

My question though is won't another party implement those ideas? (the NDP is always accusing the Libs of stealing their ideas).  The political cycle is kind of like this:

1. NDP:  we should have a public daycare system

2. Cons and Libs: no, too expensive, impossible.

[ 1 and 2 repeat for a couple times until finally society comes around to the idea]

2. LIBS or Cons: we should have a public daycare system.

So then, we get public daycare (yay) and the NDP is pushing for other things and the cycle repeats.  I don't like the left/right/centre labels, but we have them people use them and as long as the NDP = left and most voters consider themselves centre/left to hard right, the NDP can't get many votes. 

Does anyone know if there are stats on how people identify themselves (left/right/centre) and how they vote?  Is their a way for the NDP to appeal to the centre/left and centre without changing its policieis?  (branding, I mean).  And if it did that, would the left still support the NDP or would they see the NDP as no longer left enough?

ETA: guess Mulclair hasn't looked into his MP benefits package.  He does know that they all get a fantastic pension, right?  I really don't think Iggy (or any of them, including Mulclair) need CPP.

Since you substantialy changed your post I'll have to edit and say waht I was responding to. 

And the quote from Brian Topp above is his answer to that question.

Now, you chose to highlight Silver's point rather than the question that followed it.

The question is clear enough. I'm not so sure about Silver's "point" before it. Is it a point? If so, what is it?

Better yet, you emphasised it, what does it mean to you? Better still, the implications that follow.

ETA: is it not liking the Liberal leader made fun of that makes you read a joke so literally? But for what it's worth, and literally speaking, neither Mulcair or Ignatieff will be in line for a substantial MP's pension for some years.

You raise a huge number of questions. More than I care to get into now. But the point is that the NDP is not identified by all voters in its probable 'universe' as left. Probably not even most. And to the dgree it is, it can shed the albatross [if it exists]. It stilts the converstaion to talk about these things as if they are givens.

They certainly are givens and not malleable in a single election cycle. But the discussion in this thread and between Silver and Topp goes well beyond that.

There are long running political science studies that after each election dig into how people substantively evaluate and place themselves, the 'longer running values' that motivate them, policies they look for, etc.

I just read and absorb them when I come across them- no sources to pass on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't think that there is anything the NDP needs to change policy-wise to get a higher percentage of the vote - though of course exciting new policies that no one has thought of before are always good for any party. By far the biggest reason the NDP doesn't get more votes is simply perception that it isn't one of the "big two" and doesn't have enough support to win an election. When I talk to people about why they don't vote NDP - the answer is always the same "they are too small and can't win" (I'm not counting rightwing ideologues who have more substantive reasons).

A party doesn't have to represent some ideological bookend to be considered unelectable. The Liberal Democrats in the UK are the CENTRE party in British politics and yet they chronically get stuck at an NDP-like 18% of the popular vote and 50-odd seats out of 650. The same could be said of provincial Liberal parties in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and now Nova Scotia - people don't reject those parties because they are scared of them or think they represent something too extreme and outside of the mainstream. They have simply become viewed as not being serious contenders for the brass ring. Getting people to change those kinds of perceptions is like moving a glacier!

Similarly, you can do blind taste tests and most people will prefer beer from various micro-breweries over the swill that Molson and Labatts produce - and yet most people keep buying Molson and Labatt's beer. Its not that Creemore needs to have tastier beer - its about a very longterm strategy to get people to see their beer as a legitimate choice.

 To your first point: I put it in because of Topp's reference to Silver's preamble:

I thought it would add content to the debate to know what the preamble was.  

re: Iggy and being spending time away from Canada.  Yes, that bugs me.  Not because I'm jumping to the defence of the glorious leader, but because I an MP who spent time teaching at Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and whereever should be valued, not scorned, for choosing to teach at some of the best institutions in the world.  Lots of Canadians I know choose to go study and teach abroad.  It does not make them less Canadian.  He spent most of his time in the UK.  There are lots of things to criticize him on (foreign policy, okaying torture and the war in Iraq) without saying he's not Canadian enough or is not entitled to be an MP because.  I guess at least that's something the NDP and the Cons can agree on - Iggy is not Cdn enough to be PM.  I expect crap like that from the Cons, but not the NDP - that's all.   [end rant]

I'm pretty sure MP's pensions vest after 6 years.  Iggy will be entitled to his entitlement in 3 years.  Won't Mulclair already be entitled to one from his time in provincial politics (unless he opted out?)

I didn't change my post other than to correct the typo sais to said. Maybe you didn't read it all the first time through.  If you actually did read something different the first time round, you may chalk it up to babble problems or poor reading comprehension because you are blinded by your sense of righteousness.  

 Is it really necessary for me to jump on the bandwagon and lambaste Iggy for selling out Jack and Gilles on the coalition in order to engage in a debate about the political future of our country? 

I like the NDP but I think they have branding issues that need to be overcome in order to make inroads with the voters in this country. 

MPs' pensions vest after 6 years, but they can no longer collect them until age 55 ... and that part obviously will not be an issue for Ignatieff, and I don't believe for Mulcair either, but both of them will need 6 year's service first, which neither of them have.

Changed post or not. You did bold Silver's point. There is nothing in what you said that follows that illuminates what that point of Silver's is- to you being the point here, though I did already wonder what exactly Silver was saying in it.

If you think it's no longer relevant, fine.

We shouldn't be deconstucting a joke. But Mulcair's point was that we'll be waiting a long time for Iggy to vote against Harper. The toss off about not working in Canada is just the kind of gratuitous dig you either like or you don't. It wasn't the point.

Of course its not required you lambaste Iggy. But despit it being peripheral to what you were saying, you chose to come to his defense.

Nit picking the earlier nitpicks: the original point was about MP's having 'fantastic pensions'. Being vested is not a 'fantastic pension'.

Summer,

You make some good observations about the NDP.

But it does put them into a situation where they rub elbows with people who eventually typically find themselves in positions of power, big banking, and public finance. Linda McQuaig mentioned this likely conflict of interest concerning our former central banker and Oxford graduate, John Crow. Because of an alleged "at arms' length" relationship between central bankers and everyone else, we were supposed to believe that Crow made no long-lasting friendships with people who he might be in a position do favours for after graduating from such a high brow school. And Crow certainly did find himself in a position of power to do special favours for rich people once appointed governnor of Canada's central bank. Crow didnt disappoint, because his policies for zero inflation favoured rich people in the 1980s and 90's a lot moreso than ordinary Canadians who suffered unnecessarily by them.

Well, I was wrong - not for the first time and probably not for the last.  I was convinced that Iggy wouldn't throw away the keys to the PMO so easily but he did.  I hope he kept some notes about his decision making process, it will make some interesting reading when he is the subject of a NYT "Whatever happened to?" article in a few years.

Some politicians actually do pay attention to what the electorate is saying, not just their internal political 'oneupmanship' game.

 Given that the budget is bland and not creative at all, but predictably not extremely offensive, it's pretty obvious that Canadians would not want another election or an unelected coalition. I think the NDP was out to lunch on that call.

If the coalition wasn't elected - neither were the Tories since 62% of the population refused to vote for them.

As you know, we don't elect a government - we elect MPs who in turn elect a government. If a majority of MPs voted confidence in a coalition government then it is ipso-facto ELECTED. But there will always be some people who are too stupid to understand the basics of how our political system functions.

 So you are basically saying that the NDP (and the about 20% of the voters that they represent)  has to wait in the wings patiently until it is deemed right to make major policy changes and sell out and become the new liberals?  

Whats the point of that? Why not go into coalition and bargain for those people and get government posts to represent them?  Your thinking is as bleak and miserable and  has as much point to it, as anything in the play

'Waiting for Godot'. 

 If the NDP sticks with their ideals, in the world we live in and with the population ageing, they are not likely to break the 30% barrier. But so what, Those 30% deserve to be properly and strongly represented. If you rule out coalition, you are not representing them at all. 

This is why the coalition was ill conceived.  You have to have the facts behind you to justify your position.

We don't have preferential voting at the individual riding elevel. Either you win or you lose. But the federal Parliament is made up of MPs and most of those MPs are non-Conservatives.

I'd be happy to adopt Australian style preferential voting and that way all the people who vote non-Conservative can systematically rank Conservative candidates in every riding dead last. That way the Conservative would quickly be reduced to 50 seatas maximum and they would NEVER win an election again!! hehehehe 

Do you now.

I don't remember seeing mnority government on my ballot when I voted, did you? 50% of Canadians supported the coalition in the poll, more than what supported Harper. With your logic, and my polling stats, Harper's gavernment should have resigned by now, and given way to the will of the people.  

 I'm sick of people buying into this culturally approved ignorance that the media and punditry show on a consistent basis. The 'unelected' 'coup' that these overpaid ignorant talking heads keep on babbling about is the fact that they got into a position where they can spelch this ignorant nonsense and pass it off as expert opinion!

 Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)

RMR: Canada explained

Everything you wanted to know about Canada but were afraid to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A&

 Enjoy!

Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)

Avote of confidence on something like a budget is premised on several considerations, of which the numbers themselves are only one.  Among the more importantpoints to ponder is wqhther the budget is telling the truth regarding the fiscal situation, the likely progress of economic events, and the intention of the government. 

I respectfully submit that believing any of these in the current context is foolish.  The fiscal update removed all doubt that the Conservatives are willing to suppress acts and distrot reality to conform with their ideological preconceptions and their political agenda. Their past performance shows very clearly that budgeted funds for progressive window dressing projects are almost invariably unspent at the end of the budget term. There are many reasons to doubt the economic projections in the budget.

 Furthermore, there is plenty of substance in the budget that is unreasonable.  Provisions for EI, child care, environmental regulation and a whole lot more are inadequate, poorly conceived or inadequate.

I am content to leave it to the Liberals act expediently to prop up the government. Somebody needed to make the point that the budget is both imperfect in important ways and administered by untrustworthy thugs.  Good on Jack.